Klein Moynihan Turco Scores Major Trademark Infringement Win

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

October 21, 2014

trademark infringementOn September 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held that Lavatec Laundry Technology GmbH owns the exclusive rights in and to the trademark “LAVATEC” in the United States.  The holding followed a week-long trial and over four years of litigation.

The Facts of the Trademark Infringement Case

The plaintiff, represented by Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, is a successor-in-interest to a German manufacturer of commercial laundry equipment.  The German manufacturer created the name and trademark LAVATEC in 1986, and soon thereafter, incorporated a United States distributor entity.  For the first years of its existence, only the German manufacturer parent company created any products and, as the district court found, “for the first four years of its existence, [defendant] did not control the use of the mark with respect to any goods.” (emphasis in original).  The United States distributor subsidiary did interact directly with United States consumers and spend money on advertising in the United States, but ultimately did not control the use of the trademark or the quality of the goods stamped with the trademark.

In 2009, both the German parent manufacturer and the United States distributor subsidiary declared bankruptcy in their respective countries.  The plaintiff in the action purchased the assets of the German parent manufacturer, and another entity (the defendant) purchased assets of the United States distributor subsidiary.  Both the plaintiff and defendant claimed ownership in the LAVATEC trademark in the United States.

The Holding

At trial, plaintiff argued that it would prevail no matter if the district court applied either the “manufacturer/distributor” or “related companies” analysis to determine trademark ownership.  Using the “related companies” doctrine, the district court found that the German manufacturer parent company was the first to use the LAVATEC trademark in commerce in the United States.  In arriving at its ruling, the district court pointed out that any activities taken by the United States distributor subsidiary were always for the benefit of the foreign manufacturer parent and at no time did the parent company relinquish control of the LAVATEC trademark to the subsidiary distributor.

The defendant unsuccessfully argued that the subsidiary had obtained ownership of the trademark by virtue of the fact that it was “the face” of the brand in the United States and had spent money on advertising.  Despite the subsidiary’s advertising expenditures and its United States customer contact, the district court ultimately held that “[a]t no time between the creation of the Lavatec name and the first sale of Lavatec products until its insolvency did [the German manufacturer parent] relinquish [its trademark rights].  Consequently, [defendant never] acquired any right of ownership in the mark, and plaintiff [], which acquired all of the intellectual property rights of [the German manufacturer parent], now holds the exclusive ownership of the mark in the United States.”

The district court is now considering the plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction.  In the meantime, the parties have begun to engage in discovery for what should be a substantial monetary judgment against the defendant for its acts of trademark infringement.

Protect Yourself

Multinational corporations, by their nature, can leave themselves vulnerable to various intellectual property issues, including ownership of trademarks.  Such corporations should retain experienced intellectual property attorneys to take the steps necessary to protect their interests in all jurisdictions.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic, or if you have been served with legal process relating to trademark infringement, please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.

Attorney Advertising

David O. Klein

David O. Klein

David Klein is one of the most recognized attorneys in the telemarketing, technology, Internet marketing, sweepstakes and telecommunications fields. Skilled at counseling clients on a broad range of technology-related matters, David Klein has substantial experience in negotiating and drafting complex licensing, marketing and Internet agreements.

Schedule a Call
In The Know

Trending Topics

New York Sweepstakes Law blog- Klein Moynihan Turco

New York Sweepstakes Law: Are You Compliant?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In general, a lottery exists when entrants pay for the chance to win a prize. States alone reserve the right to administer lotteries. Businesses can eliminate one element of what would otherwise be an illegal lottery, in order to transform it into a legal promotional game. If the requirement to

TCPA surveys

An Ad or not an Ad: NY Weighs in on TCPA Surveys

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Another day, another court decision that refines constitutes a Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) unsolicited fax advertisement. A Manhattan-based federal court recently issued a decision that removes faxed invitations to participate in a survey from the TCPA definition of advertisement. In drawing this distinction for TCPA surveys, the Court held

NY sports gambling law- Klein Moynihan Turco

Agreement Reached to Enact NY Sports Gambling Law

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

This week, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State Legislature agreed to a budget deal that will bring mobile sports betting to the State through a unique NY sports gambling law.  Upon the Governor’s signature, NY sports gambling is primed to become the nation’s largest market. However, New York

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

UK and US Social Media Influencer Laws

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In September of 2020, the United Kingdom’s (“UK”) Committee of Advertising Practice (“CAP”) reviewed the Instagram accounts of 122 UK-based social media influencers to determine whether content was being properly flagged as advertising in accordance with applicable social media influencer laws. This past March, the UK Advertising Standards Authority (“ASA”)

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin